Re: Proposal: A standard EPP OT&E test suite for each object type and extension type

Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> 2011-06-17 12:10
> When you do transfer of a domain, what happens with the host and contact objects that are bound to the domain? What notifications are sent, and what actions have to be taken?
> 
> I think, even though we have 200+ different business models, I claim those can be implemented with only say 3-5 different ways of doing transfer.
 
I mostly agree with this.

> > It might be better to approach this from a different direction. How about defining a standard set of registry transactions -- create/delete/modify objects, renew and transfer a domain name, etc -- and writing this up as a BCP? Once that's done, the BCP could be encoded in a standard test suite. In other words, document what it is that's to be tested before developing a test suite. Some tests might be optional (for instance IDN and DNSSEC might not be deployed in places) while others are mandatory.
> 
> I fully support this. And is implicitly what I am asking for. That registries try to, before they invent their own epp architecture, look carefully at if they can not reuse what someone else is doing.

I would suggest before that to make sure that each registry document
and publish (eventually up to an IETF Informative RFC) their
extensions.
So that we would have a "catalogue" of what is happening on the field.

However this purely technical hope is severly constrained by an
economic one: each registry taken independantly has no
financial/economical/technical interest in redoing things that work
today but using another extension (so the current fragmentation has
little hope to be resolved), and even documenting it clearly and
publishing it outside of their registrars circle (and this is indeed
one example of response I got when I query registries for their
technical details as an EPP implementor but not an accredited
registrar with them).
And I do not see, since it is not a purely technical issue in the
hands of IETF, how to "convince" people to correct this situation.

So, Patrick, I agree with you, registries should "try to" see what exists
already before reinventing the wheel, but how to achieve that? I
honestly have no idea while still believing it is a worthwile goal.
Maybe registrars (as a group) + independant implementors should try to
raise their voice together...

As for the new ones with the new gTLDs, the smartest ones (those
having read Michele excellent recent post on CircleID for example) will make
sure to lower the technical differences as much as possible, and reuse
existing extensions (but back to square one: they have to be published
and well known beforehand). Others will either need anyway to create
new extension based on their own needs (and there it could go wrong
in many ways... I'm not sure there are many prospective gTLDs
operators being here, but I hope being wrong), or would argue they can
do things better/differently and then create a new extension for
something already done by some current registries.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg